Editorial: Illinois still blocking too much Sunshine

Tuesday

Mar 25, 2008 at 12:01 AMMar 25, 2008 at 9:12 PM

Last week was Sunshine Week, a time for reflecting on the importance of open government and the Freedom of Information Act. Illinois in recent years has had its share of open government successes. But for all these gains, there remains one aspect of Illinois state government still almost completely hidden from public view.

Last week was Sunshine Week, a time for reflecting on the importance of open government and the Freedom of Information Act.

Illinois in recent years has had its share of open government successes. Early in her first term, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan established an office specifically for educating and advising people in the public and private sectors on how to use and abide by the Freedom of Information Act. Comptroller Dan Hynes' office posts records on a publicly accessible Web site so citizens don't have to make formal requests for information.

But for all these gains, there remains one aspect of Illinois state government still almost completely hidden from public view. Under current Illinois law, the Illinois Executive Inspector General's Office investigates and adjudicates allegations of ethics abuse by state employees in near complete secrecy. The nature of the offenses, names of offenders and their punishments - even when they are fired for their misdeeds - have so far never been made public.

The office was created in 2003 to investigate allegations of ethics violations in state government. Each constitutional officer appoints his or her own inspector general. With subpoena power and independence to investigate allegations of wrongdoing at all levels of state government, the office is a powerful arm for reform. But the law that created it also made virtually all of its activities exempt from public review. Even the Illinois Executive Ethics Commission, created as the oversight body of the 2003 ethics law, almost never sees the results of its work.

"You look at (the ethics statute) and it looks like the commission is going to make rules for the inspectors general, which you would think would be largely self executing, and then sit in judgment of all these cases that are going to come forward," says commission member Scott Turow, the author and lawyer whose appointment as the commission's first chairman helped boost its profile. "In point of fact, the cases get resolved in secret between the IG's and the constitutional officer who appointed them and very little finds its way to the commission."

Turow believes the cases almost never reach the commission because it behooves each constitutional officer to accept the inspector general's findings and let the case be resolved with no public attention. Only when there is a dispute between the inspector general and the constitutional officer for whom the inspector works does the commission hear a case. That means the cases stay secret. Turow is hardly alone in finding that ridiculous.

"Taxpayers have a right to know if there are problems going on at certain agencies and they have a right to know if they've been remedied," says state Sen. Susan Garrett, D-Highwood, who sponsored a bill to bring some transparency to the inspector generals' work. "We should be able to know how our government is working or not working and we should be able to know if it's getting better or if they're making efforts to make it better."

Of hundreds of investigations carried out, only six have come before the commission. In its first year alone, the EIG's office terminated 25 state employees for ethics violations. Their names and the nature of their violations were never made public, effectively erasing any deterrent effect their discipline may have had on other state employees. Inspector General James Wright has said as much, and has supported efforts to allow public disclosure of his office's work.

"It goes to the matter of the ethical climate," says Chad Fornoff, executive director of the ethics commission. "As long as people aren't aware of the discipline that is carried out, the climate is going to suffer. I think that is a problem we have in the state of Illinois."

Garrett's bill passed the Senate last year but was amended in the House. The Senate then didn't like the House version, so the bill - SB 157 - is now languishing in the Senate Rules Committee. Garrett says her bill's fate is indicative of the squabbling between the two houses in the last legislative session.

It's fascinating that so many members of the General Assembly will freely advocate for ethics reform and open government, yet won't stand up to pass a measure so obviously and urgently needed to ensure that Illinois' ethics laws can not only ferret out violators, but deter future misdeeds.

It's time the House and Senate got past their petty differences and removed the shroud of secrecy that now hides some of the most important work in cleaning up Illinois government.